Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 910 (JHR)

Suhejan Bibi v. Aziz Ansari

2010-09-20

N.N.TIWARI

body2010
Order This second appeal is against the concurrent findings and judgment and decree of the learned courts below. 2. The original appellant-Abdul Sattar Ansari was Defendant NO.1 in Title Suit No. 88 of 1997. 3. The said title suit was filed by the plaintiff-Respondent No.1, praying for a decree declaring that the plaintiff has got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, being part of Plot Nos. 1101, 1099 and 1100 under Khata Nos. 17, 15 and 42, measuring an area of 10 decimals in Mouja-Dumro, P.S.-Marafari, District-Bokaro, fully described in Schedule-A of the plaint. He also prayed for a decree, declaring that Defendant No. 1 has no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant No.1 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit land. 4. The said suit was contested by the Defendant No.1, stating, inter alia, that the plot, in question, has been in his possession and his possession was also declared in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. He had been in possession of 30 decimals of land, including the suit land. The defendant had also raised other objections regarding maintainability of the suit. 5. Both the parties had led evidences-oral and documentary. 6. Several issues were framed by learned Trial Court. He discussed each and every issue, in detail, and thoroughly scrutinized and appraised the evidences of the parties. . 7. Learned Trial Court came to the finding that the Purcha-Ext. 9 was issued in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The said Purcha was granted by the Assistant Director Personnel Land Rehabilitation, Bokaro Steel Limited. The plaintiff had been in possession of the suit land and constructed a house. The plaintiff, thereafter, applied for settlement of the land over which he had constructed the house. After due enquiry and on the basis of his possession over the suit land, Purcha was issued by the concerned authority. Learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff had proved his right, title and possession over the suit land and decreed the plaintiff's suit. 8. The defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court preferred Title Appeal No. 45 of 2003 in the Court of District Judge, Bokaro. 9. Learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff had proved his right, title and possession over the suit land and decreed the plaintiff's suit. 8. The defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court preferred Title Appeal No. 45 of 2003 in the Court of District Judge, Bokaro. 9. Learned District Judge thoroughly considered the facts and evidences and after detailed discussion and appraisal thereof arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff has got valid allotment by the concerned authority and though the defendant was allotted a land by the side of the suit property, he has no valid claim or right, title over the suit land. The plaintiff, on the other hand has got valid right title and he has been in possession of the suit land. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, concurred with the finding of facts recorded by learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 10. Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the findings of the learned courts below regarding the plaintiff's right, title and possession is contrary to the weight of evidences on record. Learned courts below have failed to appreciate that the Defendant No.1-appellant was found in possession of the suit land in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and the courts below should have attached weight to such declaration by the Executive Magistrate. The claim of the plaintiff that he had been in possession and the land was settled in his favour should have been held to be baseless. Learned Courts below failed to take into consideration the said important aspect and wrongly came to the finding. The impugned judgments and decrees are erroneous unsustainable. 11. Mr. R.C.P. Sah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the learned courts below have thoroughly discussed the facts and evidences adduced by the parties and have concurrently held that the suit land was settled in favour of the plaintiff-respondent by learned Director Personnel Land Rehabilitation (D.P.L.R.), Bokaro Steel Limited, who was the competent authority for the same. The Courts below have found that the settlement was valid and legal. In the document of settlement, it has been clearly mentioned that the plaintiff was found in possession over the land and had also constructed his residential house over the suit land. The Courts below have found that the settlement was valid and legal. In the document of settlement, it has been clearly mentioned that the plaintiff was found in possession over the land and had also constructed his residential house over the suit land. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the Executive Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was wholly without any basis. However, any such order by an Executive Court is not binding on the Civil Courts. Learned Courts below have come to an independent finding based on the evidences on record that the plaintiff has been found in possession of the land, which was settled by the competent authority in his favour. Learned Courts below are not bound by the order passed in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. I have also closely perused the judgments of the learned Courts below. 13. Learned Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as nine issues. He considered each and every issue and scrutinized the material and evidences on record and decided all the substantial issues in favour of the plaintiff. Learned Trial Court has found that the plaintiff had got valid settlement in respect of the suit land. The land belonged to Bokaro Steel Ltd. and the Director Personnel Land Rehabilitation, who was the competent authority, had issued Purcha in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of his peaceful possession over the suit land. The plaintiff also constructed his residential house over the suit land. Learned Trial Court found that the plaintiff has been able to prove his right, title and possession over the suit land. He decreed the plaintiff's suit and restrained the Defendant NO.1 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit land. 14. Learned Lower Appellate Court also examined the evidences on record and concurrently found that the suit land was legally allotted in favour of the plaintiff and he was found in possession of the suit land. He further found that the defendant was allotted another land by the side of the suit property, but he has got no right title or concern over the suit land, which was allotted by the Director Personnel Land Rehabilitation, Bokaro Steel Ltd in favour of the plaintiff. He further found that the defendant was allotted another land by the side of the suit property, but he has got no right title or concern over the suit land, which was allotted by the Director Personnel Land Rehabilitation, Bokaro Steel Ltd in favour of the plaintiff. Learned Lower Appellate Court, thus, dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant laid much emphasis on the order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the Executive Court by which the Defendant no. I was shown in possession of the land. Learned counsel submitted that since the possession of the Defendant NO.1 was declared by the Executive Court, which was empowered for doing so, the same should not have been lightly brushed aside by th8 Courts below. Since the Defendant NO.1 was found in possession by the Executive Court, learned Courts below ought to have held that the alleged settlement, said to have been made on the basis of plaintiff's possession, was without any legal basis. 16. The same submission was also made in the courts below. The Courts below, exercising their civil jurisdiction, thoroughly considered all the relevant aspects and found and held the right, title and possession of the plaintiff. Findings are based on evidences and material on record. Legal reasons have been recorded in support of the findings. An order passed in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. is not binding on the Civil Courts, who has competence and jurisdiction to come to an independent finding on the basis of the material and evidences on record. 17. I find no error in the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, who have concurrently recorded their findings of facts and decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff. No ground, as such, is made out, leading to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided in this second appeal. 18. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.